I take it you haven't played it, so you probably have no idea what you're talking about.

a. Some people do care about ps characters. I couldn't wait to play as Nariko vs Kratos.

b. It plays significantly differently. Sure, not everyone who played it liked it (just like with any other game made), but the majority of people who gave the full game a fair chance actually really enjoyed it.

He didn't call them morons, but ignorant, because that's what they are.

@OP

It's a good idea, actually. The sales could have been much better actually because of the novelty factor. However, Psallstars is great and fun as it is.

I have an even better idea: Playstation All Stars with Anarchy Reins type mutliplayer.

The answer is always Platinum games.

neh.. the problem are the characters.. some of the nintendo characters are more then just a videogame character.. which the Sony ones can't compete with making the target audience very small..

I'm a Smash fan and I think it's really fun. But like many have said it should have had more characters.

the thing is that Sony characters are just not a fit for a cartoony styled game like Smash Bros. If you threw them into a game like anarchy reigns or even GOWA, they would make more sense.

my idea is having a proper violent brawler like anarchy reings where you could match up exclusive Sony characters with their mutliplatform counterparts: "Kratos, Radec, Drake, Tony Redgrave" VS "Gabriel (castelvania), Big Daddy, Lara Croft, Bayonetta".

1 word yes.

Thing is that All-Stars doesn't stand out, and Sony pretty much pulled the plug on the studio that did All Stars. Maybe All-Stars is decent, but it is insufficient to stand out enough to really get a sequel. Anyone interested in Smash Bros. style play goes with the Nintendo platform. The idea of a mash up fighter of a console's characters is a good one. But best to try to stand out differently.

Everytime I read "who love Smash Bros." it's almost always in a sentence with "hate it". If you go in expecting Smash Bros like most Smash fans seem to do, you will not have a good time because it's not Smash bros. It doesn't play the same like so many expected. 

It's annoying, really. People shit on the game before playing it claiming it's a Smash rip-off then shit on it after playing because it's not enough like Smash and there for bad.

I play both, btw. Play them both regularly.

So, exactly how, from a gameplay standpoint is All Stars superior to Smash Bros?  And if it isn't superior in any way, then what is its point?  Maybe someone is into platform brawlers, but if not normally a big fan, why would someone own both, or pick All-Stars over Smash Bros. unless they are a fan of Playstation characters, and don't mind having the inferior game?

And this is an editorial that compares the two:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/10053-PlayStation-All-Stars-Vs-Super-Smash-Bros

Any reason why the All Stars way to win is superior to Smash Bros?

It's quite silly and over simplifying to try and deduce if one of the two is 'superior'. It has no relevance. They are different games with different approaches. So whether the way of winning is superior or not is entirely subjective and changes from person to person

I love All stars much better because it's a much more offense based game...the battle system is great and has a lot of depth. It also has a very nice combo system in place. Where it lackeis presentation and the roster. 

DGC is absolutely right..if you go in thinking the game will play like Smash you will not be able to fully enjoy it or even be that good at it. It's no different that for example going into Virtua Fighter thinking it'll play like Tekken since you are a Tekken fan. Neither tekken's approach or VF's approach is superior to each other